The aim of this paper is to offer possible explanations for the declining interest in regional geography. One of the major contributing factors is employment potential. Employment is perceived as being relatively limited for persons defining their interests as "regional" within geography. Students, therefore, do not enroll in regional geography courses. From the students' perspective it is only logical to select career-oriented geography courses, and since the early 1960's systematic geography courses have enabled them to do this with great ease. The quantitative revolution in geography complemented the systematic side of the discipline extremely well. Systematic-quantitative geography, because it was new, dynamic, and had publication potential and external funding possibilities, became very appealing. Regional geography lacked this dynamism. Another reason for regional geography's decline is that it requires years of study and travel to become knowledgeable about a certain region. In a publish or perish academic world, this is often not feasible for a young faculty member. The paper concludes that lack of faculty interest and student concerns will hold geography firmly in the grip of the systematic camp for some time to come. (RM)